Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1887-04-15
N COUNTY MINNESOTA, FRIDAY. APRIL Is. 1887

contest than the contestants, and to
prevent collusion in these cases by
which the popular will might be thwart-
ed. Minor vs.. Kidder 49 Cal. 229.
1t will be seen that including Ashby
Village contestee has a majority Of S,
and including Herman his majority is
%.
II is not necessary to discuss the status
Of the villages Of Herman and Ashby
prior to the passage of On. 145 q. Laws
1885. The former was organized under
the the general laws (Chap. 10 g. s.
1878, title, vil'ages) set in motion by
Chap. 20 Special laws 1881. 1t was not
incorporated by special act and hence
the re-,ncorporation under Sec. Of
Chap. 13 G. l.. 1883 was an useless
ceremony. 1t is Of the class mentioned
in Sec. 2 of Chap. 145 supra, and
governed wholly by that chapter. State
Va. Cornwall N. W. IA.
Ashby was incorporated under the un-
constitutional act OF 1883, State VS..
Simons 50 Minn. $40. BY acts approved
January 20, 1855, (Chap. 23l G. Laws
and March 7, 1886, (Chap. 256 Gen.
Laws), the Legislature attempted to
legalize all corporations ofthis class but
whether the attempt was successful and
whether Ashby is village or not cannot
be inquired lnto in this proceeding.
Tisdale VS.. Minsnk 46 Ill., 8. Nor is it
attempted. AS Chap. l45 aforesaid was
passed subsequently to the legalizing
acts, am Of the opinion that we can
safely treat Ashby as falling within the
terms Of Sec, . thereof. and DOW existing
as municipalily--if at all-under the
Gen. law, the same as Herman. Il
follows thai the question uuder discussion
applies t. each village and may thus Je
stated: Are the villages mentioned in
said Chap. 142 and now organized there
under separate election districts for al,
purposes: 1t will be seen that said
chapter ID, with some changes hereiuat.
ter noted, the same as Chap. 20 h. s.
1878 OF Wis. Section 224 Chap. 10 G. S.
1878 as amended III 1858 does not appear
in The law of 1885, and council for the
contestec herein argues that it has not
beeu repealed, is still in rce. This
may not be So but without ruling upon
it DO not hesitate to say that the act Of
1885 creates municipalities as separate
from the parent township as cities are;
they are for every purpose another cor
poru'ion, have no interests in common
and are wholly distinct. Villagers can
III no manner participate in town affairs
and it follows that they can neither vote
nor hold office in towns. Villages ale
"endowed with all rights, powers and
duties incident 10 municipal corporations
at common law.' Sec. 9 "All village
elections shall he r conducted and
the result canvassel and certified as in
the case Of town meetings and s. Il X
every statute relating to holding town
meetings, canvassing and certifying the
result thereof. which is
applicable to town meetings, is hereby
extended and applied 10 village cleo.
.ions," Sec II. The result ol general
elections is certified to the County Aubi.
tor but Of no other. If said section il
applicable at all it is to general elections
only.
Again, each village elects every officer
needed for self governments; its council
is its hoard Of equalization. recognized
also in Par 80, Chap II, on taxes, Gen
ST., 1878, returning its work directly t
the County Auditor 1t has exclusive
control; can lay out and alter all public
ways. expentls all public monies, ant
nowhere in said Chap. l45 do we find al
intimation that such municipality
endowed with much greater power thal
a 1own--shall remain a part thereof
| Nowhere in the act-except in Sec. SO =
do we find the town or its officers men
toned. And that section is fonnd, SEEM
to have been copied from the Wisconsi'
statute referred to. II is also largel
useless. This would seem sufficient, bu
by Chap. IT'S, Gen. Laws 1885, the ''co1
porate authorities Of any village, town
or CITY" are authorized ITO establish a
many" voting places or precincts a. ma,
he conyenlsnt. If the fact that village
are not mentioned in paragraph 2. Chap
l, Gen. st. 1878, bad any Significance
, said Chap. 172 removes all question s
far as villages organized or acting unde
the general laws are concerned.
: Attention is called to Jones VS.. Kol
IS Wis. 263. Jones, a resident of Yves
Depere village, attempted to vote at
town election held in Depere township
3 out OF which the village had been carved
| was refused and brought suit against th
inspectors of said election for damages
, AS the law then existed in Wisconsin th
, town assessor assessed all village pro-
. erty, the township treasurer collected a
, taxes, and the township board equalize
!, all assessments. 1t was forcibly urge
= that the voters of the village who's
t property was assessed and equalized an
f from whom all taxes were collected
y township officers. should participate
the election thereof, but the court he
n Plaintiff was not voter in said town f
any purpose: The argument used in th
e case is swept away by our statute. whi'
e provides Tor village assessor and villa
e board of equalization, ,whiie all taxes a
e collected by county treasurers.